Definitions Paragraph

Type 1 Diabetes is most commonly found in children and is a lifelong disease in which the body does not produce insulin.  Insulin is a hormone produced by the pancreas that is needed in everyday life in order to turn convert sugar, starches and other foods into energy.  Those living with Type 1 Diabetes can easily manage it and continue to have a healthy life.  They must take proper care of themselves in order to do this.  Blood sugars must constantly be regulated.  In order to do this, one must have insulin in their body from an outside source.  Some people are on an insulin pump, which constantly feeds insulin into your body to keep your blood sugars regulated.  Others do insulin injections at every meal.  When HbA1c levels are mentioned, this is just another way of saying blood sugar levels.  Biochemical hypoglycemia means low blood glucose level.  This occurs when the glucose levels are not being monitored and taken care of continuously.

Scholarly Article Precis

In the scholarly article “Satisfaction with continuous glucose monitoring in adults and youths with Type 1 diabetes” (2011) the authors elaborate on the close attention paid to glucose levels in people with Type 1 Diabetes and how it directly benefits the patients.  The authors support this claim by telling readers that although it is extremely difficult to constantly monitor glucose levels, it is proven that frequent monitoring results in lower levels of biochemical hypoglycemia.  The article is aimed to provide readers with more knowledge and facts about continuous glucose monitoring in order to make them more aware of the ways to prevent further complications.  This article is intended for other scholars, or adults interested in learning more about the subject matter. 

Ted Video Response

Brian Stevenson starts off the video by explaining identity.  Identity has meaning and power depending on how you use it.  You could be a teacher and make an impact on students, or be a caring teacher and make an even bigger impact.  It's all about your identity and how you choose to use it.  He then gave us insight to his life as a child.  He talks about how his grandma would give him the biggest hugs just to make sure that he would still feel them later on.  When he was 8 or 9 years old he promised his grandma three things: to always love his mother, always do the right thing, and never drink alcohol.  To this day, he has kept those three promises.  This shows the power in identity and how much you can affect a single person's life.  He then starts talking about our country's system of justice and how most of the time wealth shapes outcomes.  The death penalty is a huge issue and the question that is always brought up with it is "Do people deserve to die for the crime they committed?"  Brian brings up a new question that reverses the roles.  "Do we deserve to kill?"  He believes that we need to stop trying so hard to give people the worst punishment imaginable and rather bring justice to the victims of the crime.  At one point he states that "Every person is better than the worst thing they've done."  He also points out that in a lot of cases, the judge has "magical powers" and can turn you into something you're not.  He believes that everyone should be given equal rights, even when on trial.  Every person should be treated the same and should face the same penalties no matter your race, class, gender, etc.  The speech is ended by Brian stating "Keep your eyes on the prize and hold on."  He says this in order to give hope for our country as a whole and hope for individuals that believe the justice system needs to be changed. 

The Daily Show Free Write

This clip from The Daily Show made a few valid points as to why the N word could be replaced with the word slave.  I personally believe that the book should be left the way it is.  Mark Twain wrote the book in order to educate readers on slavery at the time.  History shouldn't be changed just because today's society finds it offensive.  People are already aware of the word so deleting it from popular texts isn't going to change the way people view it.  Most people already know why it is considered offensive and have made decisions in their own lives to either use the word or take it out of their vocabulary.  History can't be changed, and neither should a popular book that many people have read in their lifetime.

New York Times column summary

This article was about the spending habits of candidates running for President each year and how the amounts spent on campaigning affect the opinions of voters.  The amounts spent on campaigning have increased tremendously over the years.  In 1976, candidates each spent about $35 million on their campaigns.  This year, President Obama raised $181 million in just the month of September.  Many people believe that if more money was spent on campaigns, voters would be more educated on their candidates.  The majority of the Supreme Court believe that spending restrictions are a violation of the First Amendment and the amount candidates are allowed to spend should be limitless.  Super PACs are a form of campaigning allowing wealthy people to contribute amounts of more than $1000 toward campaign advertising.  Individual contributions to a particular candidate cannot exceed $5000.  The amount someone can donate to a super PAC is limitless, which is usually directed toward a particular political party.  

Ethos, Pathos, & Logos for NY Times Article

Ethos:

• Austin Powers movie – “If you want it back, you will have to pay me one million dollars!”
• Brendan Doherty, political science professor at the United States Naval Academy
• Sheldon Adelson’s main political interest is Israel. He has pumped $10 million into Restore Our Future, the biggest Republican super PAC.
• Karl Rove knows what the Romney campaign needs at any given moment is in charge of and running the most important of the Republican super PACs.
• Rahm Emanuel, mayor of Chicago and Obama’s first chief of staff is helping to raise money for a Democratic super PAC.

Pathos:

• Mitt Romney and Barack Obama could possibly spend more than $1 billion each in this year’s election.
• Candidates spend more time fundraising than actually trying to get voters.
• President Obama has held six fundraisers in a single day, twice.
• Jim Bopp Jr., a lawyer from Terre Haute, has devoted his life to freeing the country of campaign spending limits. To him, and the majority of the Supreme Court, spending restrictions are a violation of the First Amendment.
• “Most people don’t even know who their congressman is.” –Jim Bopp Jr.
• Makes unlimited spending seem democratic.
• The Supreme Court majority has said that campaign spending that is independent of the candidate cannot be corrupting.
• Ads are running with such frequency that people are tuning them out.
• Money that comes into politics has the potential to corrupt.
• We see it every day in Congress. A congressman gets on an important committee, begins to raise money from the companies that care about the committee’s issues — and, suddenly, the congressman is writing legislation the company wants.

Logos:

• 1976 election: Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter were allowed to spend $35 million each on campaigning.
• Obama campaign raised $181 million in just the month of September.
• “Super PACs” (a form of campaigning allowing wealthy people to contribute amounts of more than $1000 toward campaign advertising)
• Individual contributions to a particular candidate can not exceed $5000; the amount someone can donate to a super PAC is limitless.
• More spending on campaigns, voters would be more educated on their candidates.

Buying the Election?

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/09/opinion/nocera-buying-the-election.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss